When Lincoln was assassinated in April 1865, he was succeeded by his deputy Andrew Johnson. Although from Tennessee, a southern Confederate state, and although a Democrat, Johnson had always been a loyal supporter of the Union and the Republican Lincoln had wanted him in his Team of Rivals to broaden his support base and present himself to America as the l unifier of the nation.
Once inside the White House Johnson carried out some of the policies of Lincoln, but did not oppose southern states which, despite having lost the Civil War, sought to restore discriminatory practices against blacks. Johnson was a strict constitutionalist and since his actions were formally correct, the Republicans passed an ad hoc law that prevented the president from carrying out the dismissal of his war secretary knowing that Johnson would refuse to revoke him. So it was. Johnson was then subjected by the lower house to the procedure of impeachmentor indictment. The process, as required by the constitution, was managed by the senate. In a heated climate and with rampant vote-buying, Johnson was finally acquitted and was able to complete his term.
The American impeachment procedure is modeled on the British one (the House of Commons decides the indictment and the House of Lords judges). Benjamin Franklin included it in the constitution because, as he wrote, impeachment was better than regicide. The memory of Charles I's beheading in 1649 was still fresh.
No president has ever been removed from office by impeachment proceedings. Johnson e Clinton they were acquitted and Nixon he resigned before the sentence. Expected as absolutely exceptional by the Founding Fathers, impeachment has become an increasingly frequent tool in the political struggle in recent decades and signals a structural decay. Just think of the fact that Hillary Clinton, if elected, would have been immediately impeached by the Republican lower house.
Now, in Washington circles, there is talk of nothing but impeachment for Trump. Be careful, though. Talking about it doesn't mean we're close. Even if it is a much more political than judicial procedure, the prosecution needs, for obvious reasons of consent, some evidence of a crime and at the moment there is absolutely nothing on Trump. On the other hand, it is very difficult for the Republican lower house to initiate the procedure.
Instead, what has been around for a few hours is a congressional commission of inquiry into the alleged links between Trump and the Russians. Similar commissions were a thorn in the side of Reagan and Clinton for many years but did not prevent either from completing their mandates and carrying out their policies.
The political purpose of commissions of inquiry of this type is not to find the truth but to widen the investigation like wildfire and set a dense series of procedural traps while waiting for someone of the accused or witnesses to contradict or declare falsehood. The initial pretext is often very weak, but the prosecution knows that the defence, under pressure, always commits mistakes and it is precisely on these mistakes that the deadly attack is expected to be carried out.
Democrats don't want anything particularly quick against Trump because they know a Pence presidency would be popular. Better to keep Trump in check without mating him in order to win next year's midterm elections and win back the House and Senate. The market reaction is not justified if it is motivated by the imminence of spectacular events, which probably won't happen, but it has some reason nonetheless.
The most serious is that the reforms, in particular the fiscal one, at this point risk becoming covered up further. We don't agree on this, or rather, we still don't agree. Trump and the Republicans know that everything is really at stake on reforms and the pressure they are subjected to can certainly translate into division and failure, but, alternatively, also into greater awareness of the absolute need to deliver something to the country in a reasonable time.
A second reason is that Trump's weakness could translate into a fading of those entrepreneurial animal spirits that had suddenly reawakened after the November vote. To this one can answer that just as the practical consequences of this resurgence of optimism have been greatly overestimated (there has been no explosion of hiring, investment or consumption), so too today we risk overestimating the negative impact on the real economy of possible deteriorating sentiment indicators ahead.
A third reason, the most plausible at the moment, is that even before the events of these days, the American rise appeared increasingly tiring, inertial and subtle. And above all not justified. A modest retreat, in these conditions, is all there is to it. The situation is different for Europe, which needs an America that is at least stable in order to continue to rise, despite having good reasons for the rise of its own.
The corollary of these speeches is that there is still no reason to think that the Fed will not raise rates in June and that the ECB it will interrupt its process of gradual hardening of its positions. For the next phase, in the absence of further surprises, we see a US stock market in ranges, with a little more volatility but without new highs of any significance and without breakouts, a Europe that will cautiously approach the highs and a dollar now oversold which could attempt a modest recovery.
